On "Right-Wing Communism"

Written piece by Charles and Alexandria

A lot of people with even a basic understanding of Marxism think that every different ideological tendency within the movement can all just be bunched into one lump sum, without any further consideration. This is a fundamentally incorrect obfuscation of the far-left and its many groups. Just like with other political groups and parties, even the radical left’s communists and socialists are split between left and right sects of Marxian ideology, philosophy, and plan of action.

On what may well be called the genuine left of the Marxist philosophy, we have those whose ideological beliefs came from the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism. This includes, but is not limited to; Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and followers of Juche ideology.

In the way of more reactionary political tendencies in application of Marxist philosophy, we have those whose ideological beliefs are either borderline anti-Marxist, or liberal. This includes, but not limited to; Trotskyism, anarcho-communism, ultra-left, and a most especial phenomenon in recent developments, so-proclaimed “brocialists.”

The right-wing of the communist community is the set of unorganized and revisionist sects whose beliefs and lack of organization tend to foment factionalism within any party whose line sits in the genuine ring of the left. - The left wing, the Marxist-Leninists, et.al., study to understand the world, to understand the contradictions of capitalism through the frameworks of dialectical and historical materialism; it is this formed right wing, a liberal wing, that lacks such study, or lacks the grasp of Dialectical Materialism to study. It is in this that the left wing questions and collectively works to teach and learn, while the right-wing will attack and silence, as is famous among many of these factions among the right-wing communists, such as the Trotskyists, Brocialists, ultra-left, etc.

But what is famous, among these groups of the right, that makes them act in such a way. I will be explaining this in detail, for all main four.

• Trotskyism: There are a host of various issues associated with the Trotskyite following, rooted naturally in Trotsky’s own ideological formation. Trotskyites today do not seek to organize nor agitate, but would rather join rallies and ignore the efficiency of the collective organization of a mass group or party. Parties that do rally behind Trotskyism are themselves riddled with factional divisions and opportunism, alongside a general lack of unified action, are themselves divided from the working-class in their general “praxis.” Trotskyists, historical will attack members of the far-left, specifically Marxist-Leninists, over the disagreements of tactics, activity, and/or political philosophy. And this attacking soon leads to trying to silence these groups, like they try to silence Marxist-Leninists. This has been seen historically as Trotskyists rally with the petty-bourgeoisie to stop Marxist-Leninists rallies, or try to liquidate the Marxist-Leninist party itself. Even, historically done by Trotsky. Trotsky rallied with anarchists and social-democrats to form the Mensheviks, to rally against, and try to stop those who followed Lenin, and his philosophy of Leninism; for Lenin and Trotsky was ideological rivals. And then it turned from that, to the rally against Marxism-Leninism, in Stalin’s made arrangement and theoretical organization of the ideology. Thus, the creation of anti-left propaganda was made from Trotskyists, and such propaganda has been adopted by the bourgeoisie. So Trotsky, and Trotskyism as a philosophy and movement, uses some of the first ever anti-communist propaganda, that has found popularity among the bourgeoisie.

• Anarcho-Communism: As a former Anarcho-Communist, I can speak from past studies and experience of the many held beliefs associated with Anarcho-Communism. Not only is there the aspect of Anarchism, which is anti-state. There is the Communism, which is the lack of state. So I understand why this, as a philosophy, exists. However, it is the lack of understanding, which is a present issue with Anarcho-Communists. Communism may be the lack of state, but for Marxists there is the understanding of the transition period, which is the socialist state. That is the major difference between Anarcho-Communists, and Marxists, along with the disagreement in tactics. The fundamental issue with Anarcho-Communists, which is the issue with Anarchists in general, is the idea that state can collapse, and people will, somehow, adapt to anarchist, or in this case, communist lifestyle. The issue with this, which, most people can figure out, is that without any education to teach a society how living under a lifestyle, such as this one, would drop the society into pure chaos. That, and it also leaves the society vulnerable to the bourgeoisie rising back to political and economic power. That is the purpose of the transition period, aka, the socialist state. But this goes against the principles of Anarchism, and this is where the problem lies. Then, we get into the aspect of tactics. Those of the left-wing of communism know, capitalism, and all other forms of government, are organized and centralized around the ruling class, and the state which the class controls. So, with this, it would take an organized, united movement to pose any real political threat to changing the current status quo. Which, organization in such a manner is common among the left-wing communists. While, Anarcho-Communists of the right-wing, or Anarchists in general, oppose such organization, because of the principles of Anarchism that is anti-hierarchy, not to mention the plaguing individualism of Anarchism. It is because of this lack of organization, that Anarchists are not as popular, because their lack of organization makes it difficult for them to establish foothold of Anarchist hegemony; while it is possible, it is difficult. Anarcho-Communists, like Trotskyists, share two things in common. Historically, they share the same beliefs in anti-communist propaganda, and they rally with petty-bourgeoisie to counter the left-wing communists. Lenin said “Anarchism is Bourgeois liberalism in reverse” for a reason.

• Ultra-left: Those who are ultra-left can be summed up as primitive leftists who refuse to acknowledge the genuity of materialist dialectics as established from Marx on in core principle. We see such ignorant ideological tendencies of ultra-leftism historically present in the works of such communists as Antonie Pannekoek, Paul Mattick, and so on, in the made “anti-Bolshevik, anti-Soviet” philosophies of council communism and so on, proposing counters to formative Leninist dialectics and making baseless claims of the elimination of the true empowerment of workers’ councils and so on in the Soviet Union, attempting to demonstrate the lack of socialism in said nation and foundational ideology in this. These things given, if we are to relate to Mao Zedong’s “Combat Liberalism,” the ultra-leftist ideology falls under such a category, given its opposition of the popular movements of workers, if not working in the spectrum of liberalism from time to time as a means of activism.

• Brocialism: A most recent phenomenon of the left, so-called “brocialism” is a following by pseudo-leftists of an ideological tendency to go against the formations of proletarian or materialist feminism as charged by Marxism–Leninism, and so on. These groupings tend to construct ridiculous strawmen and other such misrepresentations of feminists and feminism in among the radical left in argument against these ideologies, claiming that they may be revisionist or swamped with “Tumblr social justice warriors,” who are a “scourge upon the left.” All “brocialists,” as they are derogatorily termed, tend to make ideological statements and generalizations that are rooted in transphobia, misogyny, and general antagonism of any grouping that follows through with a seeking of unification of LGBT+ minorities on a leftist basis.

Such ignorance of the theoretical basics of Marxism and Marxism–Leninism in its analytical framework which leads us to the understanding of the means whereby proletarian revolution is achieved, is itself a form of revisionism - a most volatile and slowly growing tendency of reaction in the left.

It is clear, from such detailed analysis, that the right communists is what holds most progress in the subject of workers liberation back from achieving its goal. It is this as proof, that party purges and criticism is important to keep a revolutionary movement functioning and remove the liberal opportunism that divides and liquidates a party.